MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402225817 · doi:10.3390/computation12090180

Optimized Calculation of Radial and Axial Magnetic Forces between Two Non-Coaxial Coils of Rectangular Cross-Section with Parallel Axes

2024· article· en· W4402225817 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoaxialCross section (physics)Section (typography)PhysicsGeometryEngineeringMathematicsComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce a new algorithm for calculating the radial and axial magnetic forces between two non-coaxial circular loops with parallel axes. These formulas are derived from a modified version of Grover’s formula for mutual inductance between the coils in question. Utilizing these formulas, we compute the radial and axial magnetic forces between two non-coaxial thick coils of rectangular cross-sections with parallel axes. In these calculations, we apply the filament method and conduct investigations to determine the optimal number of subdivisions for the coils in terms of computational time and accuracy. The method presented in this paper is also applicable to all conventional non-coaxial coils, such as disks, solenoids, and non-conventional coils like Bitter coils, all with parallel axes. This paper emphasizes the accuracy and computational efficiency of the calculations. Furthermore, the new method is validated according to several previously established methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it